DETAILED ACTION
Status
The amendment filed 11/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are pending. In the amendment filed 11/11/2025, no claims were amended, no claims were canceled, and claim 12-13 were newly added.
Claim Interpretation
The term “stagnation prevention portion” in claim 7 is interpreted inclusive of a rounded or chamfered corner [0022]. The term is not interpreted as invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because “portion” is not a recognized generic placeholder and because the claim is clearly referring to a portion of the storage tank (i.e. a structure).
The term “fan-shaped” in claim 10 is interpreted inclusive of a curved tank extending along an arc (see Fig 10 and [0047]).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“filtering system” in claim 6 interpreted as more than one filter for different particle size filtering [0027].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the processing tank and the storage tank are structurally configured such that liquid communication between the tanks occurs exclusively through the communication port and is precluded from occurring by overflow across an upper end of the communication side-wall” is new matter because the instant specification does not provide or otherwise limit the structural configuration or tie any design to preclude overflow and demonstrates the communication side-wall (11 Fig 2) as the same height as the tank walls (Fig 2) such that there is no disclosed other structural configuration to preclude overflow of the communication side-wall 11 (i.e. when liquid is filled high enough to overflow the tank walls it will also overflow the communication side-wall 11). The use of “preclude” in the claim language means that it is impossible. As noted above, when liquid is supplied to the tank at a large enough volume and/or flow rate, it will overflow all walls of the tank including the communication side-wall 11. The instant specification does not recite the language of claim 12 and does not disclose any structural design such as the wall having a taller height that would preclude the overflow. Therefore the limitation represents new matter. For purpose of compact prosecution on the merits, the claim will be examined using the interpretation applied in the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the processing tank and the storage tank are structurally configured such that liquid communication between the tanks occurs exclusively through the communication port and is precluded from occurring by overflow across an upper end of the communication side-wall” is unclear because it is unclear if the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. it will be filled with liquid at a low enough level that the liquid is below the height of the communication side-wall 11 and is therefore prevented from overflowing the communication side-wall) or if applicant is indicating a structural arrangement of the tank and communication side-wall such that liquid communication is precluded from occurring by overflow. It is noted that the interpretation that there is a structural arrangement represents new matter (see rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above). Therefore the claim is being examined with an interpretation inclusive of being directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be employed in which the apparatus is employed with a liquid level low enough to not overflow the communication side-wall. Further, it is unclear what is meant by “preclude”. The term preclude is inclusive of both “prevent” or “make impossible”. It is noted that even operation with a lower liquid level does not make the overflow impossible because overflow may occur if the apparatus is tilted or otherwise disrupted (e.g. earthquake). Therefore the claim will be interpreted inclusive of “prevent”. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claim for clarity such as by using prevent and clarifying that the overflow prevention is related to the intended liquid level during operation or to consider canceling claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (prev. presented US 2015/0270147) in view of Cheney (prev. presented US 4,135,530) and Giles (prev. presented US 4,924,890).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a liquid chemical processing device (abstract, Fig 1-2, [0002]) comprising: a processing tank (150 Fig 1) in which resist removal processing is performed by immersing substrates in a chemical [0062]; a plurality of holders (80 Fig 3, 6, and shown not numbered in Fig 2, [0069], [0086]) configured to hold the substrates in a vertical posture [0086] (80 Fig 6); vertical drivers (lifters 70 Fig 2) configured to individually and vertically drive the plurality of holders ([0069], [0073], [0086-0088]); and a chuck (hand 42 Fig 5 [0076]) configured to disengageably chuck the substrates [0076], [0080-0082], wherein the vertical drivers are configured to individually and vertically move the plurality of holders between an immersed position where the substrates are immersed in the chemical and a non-immersed position where the substrates are lifted up from the chemical [0062-0065], [0068-0069], [0086-0087], and the substrates held by the plurality of holders are subjected to the resist removal processing in a single wafer manner [0062]. Note that while “the substrates held by the holders are subjected to the resist removal processing in a single wafer manner” is taught by Kobayashi and therefore a citation of the teaching was provided, this limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be operated and directed to the intended contents (resist removal chemical) during operation and article worked upon (a substrate having resist). It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Kobayashi fails to teach a nozzle is disposed at an upper portion of the processing tank, the nozzle being configured to eject the chemical downward toward the substrates, the processing tank communicates with a storage tank adjacent to the processing tank through a communication port provided in a bottom of a communication side-wall of the processing tank, and the communication port and the storage tank are not provided with a driver to move the substrates.
Regarding a nozzle is disposed at an upper portion of the processing tank, the nozzle being configured to eject the chemical downward toward the substrates, in the same field of endeavor of an immersion processing tank (abstract, Fig 2), Cheney teaches a nozzle (opening of 31 Fig 2, col 2, ln 29-40) disposed at an upper portion of processing tank (opening of 31 Fig 2 is at upper portion of processing tank 18), the nozzle being configured to eject the chemical downward toward the substrates (Fig 2 and col 2, ln 29-40). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to include the nozzle and nozzle arrangement as taught by Cheney because Kobayashi discloses a tank filled with liquid but is silent as to how liquid is added to the tank and Cheney demonstrates this arrangement allows for liquid to be added to the tank (col 2, ln 29-50).
Regarding the processing tank communicates with a storage tank adjacent to the processing tank through a communication port provided in a bottom of a communication side-wall of the processing tank, Kobayashi teaches a plurality of tanks and therefore teaches a second tank (storage tank) adjacent to a first tank but fails to teach a storage tank downstream of the processing tank. Cheney teaches the processing tank (18 Fig 2) communicates with a storage tank (19 Fig 2) that is adjacent to the processing tank and downstream of the processing tank (Fig 2, and col 2, ln 5-35). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include communication between the processing tank (first tank) and the storage tank (second tank) because Kobayashi teaches a plurality of tanks for insertion of a substrate and Cheney teaches this arrangement allows for liquid to be shared between two adjacent tanks. Regarding through a communication port provided in a bottom of a communication side-wall of the processing tank, Cheney does not teach the communication port as claimed. In the same field of endeavor of liquid immersion semiconductor processing apparatuses (abstract), Giles teaches a communication port (70 Fig 4) provided in a bottom of a communication side-wall (bottom of wall 68 Fig 4) of the processing tank (50 Fig 4) (col 4, ln 40-51). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi and the combination of Kobayashi in view of Cheney to include a communication port in the communication side-wall of the processing tank as an opening through which the processing (first) tank and the storage (second) tank communicate because Giles teaches such a port (70 Fig 4) to allow for removal of settled particulates during and after operation of the tanks (col 4, ln 40-51). The removal of settled particulates allows for enhanced cleaning of the tanks and prevents accumulation of particulates in the processing tank.
In the combination as presented above, the communication port and the storage tank are not provided with a driver to move the substrates (see Cheney Fig 2 and Giles Fig 4).
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Giles as applied in the combination teaches the communication port (70 Fig 4) is provided in a bottommost part of the communication sidewall (wall 68 Fig 4).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Kobayashi fails to teach a discharge tank and therefore fails to teach the relative height of the overflow side-wall and the communication side-wall. Cheney teaches a discharge tank (21 Fig 1-2, col 2, ln 7-15) disposed adjacent to the storage tank (tank 19 Fig 1-2) to store the chemical that overflows from an overflow side-wall (wall 17 Fig 1-2, col 2, ln 10-20) that separates the storage tank (tank 19 Fig 1-2) and the discharge tank (tank 21 Fig 1-2) from each other (Fig 1-2). Cheney additionally teaches a height of the overflow side-wall (17 Fig 2) is lower than a height of the communication sidewall (16 Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the discharge tank disposed adjacent to the storage tank to store the chemical that overflows from an overflow side-wall that separates the storage tank and the discharge tank from each other and a height of the overflow side-wall (17 Fig 2) is lower than a height of the communication sidewall because Cheney teaches this allows for liquid to flow to an outlet in a controlled manner and to allow for increasing purity in the liquid tanks (col 2, ln 50-65).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi fails to teach the stagnation prevention portion. Giles teaches a stagnation prevention portion (curved lower left corner above drain 56 Fig 4) provided at a bottom of the tank adjacent to the processing tank (tank above 56 that is analogous to the storage tank) on an opposite side of the communication port (70 Fig 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi and the combination of Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles to include this stagnation prevention portion (curved corner) because this appears to represent a change of shape of the corners of the tank and storage tank to include curved or rounded corners (or edges) and because Giles teaches the curved shape also works for the corner (i.e. it is a functional alternative for the edge or corner of a tank). It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the corners or edges of the storage tank. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be operated. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The apparatus of the combination is capable of being operated in a manner in which there is no over flow from the processing tank to the storage tank via an upper end of the communication side-wall because the apparatus, and in particular Cheney, may be operated with a lower liquid level such that liquid does not overflow the communication side-wall.
Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. The combination as applied to claim 1 is capable of being operated with a liquid level lower than the communication side-wall such that liquid is precluded (i.e. prevented) from overflowing the upper end of the communication side-wall. In the combination as applied, the processing tank and storage tank are both structurally configured to contain liquid other than the communication port such that liquid communication occurs exclusively through the communication port when operated or filled with a liquid level below the upper end of the communication side-wall. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 13, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Giles as applied in the combination teaches a communication port (70 Fig 4) provided in a bottom of a communication side-wall (bottom of wall 68 Fig 4) of the processing tank (50 Fig 4) (col 4, ln 40-51). Giles teaches the communication port (70 Fig 4) allows for flow during and after operation (col 4, ln 47-50) which indicate the communication port is configured to be open during operation. Giles does not teach the communication port is closed, but assuming arguendo the communication port may be closed and opened, the port (drain 70) of Giles is configured to permit continuous flow by being operated in a maintained open state. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Uehara (prev. presented US 6,199,563).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi and the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Kobayashi fails to teach an ultrasonic generator disposed at a bottom of the processing tank. In the same field of endeavor of a liquid chemical processing device (abstract, Fig 1), Uehara teaches an ultrasonic generator (source 31 and bath 30 Fig 2) disposed at a bottom of the processing tank (processing tank is 10 and the generator of 30 & 31 is disposed at the bottom of it Fig 2) (col 6, ln 4-20). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to include the ultrasonic generator disposed at a bottom of the processing tank as taught by Uehara because Uehara teaches applying ultrasonic waves to a processing bath is known in the art (col 1, ln 15-40) and teaches that the arrangement improves uniformity of processing (col 6, ln 19-26 and col 9, ln 55-65).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi and the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Kobayashi and the combination fail to teach a circulation path is provided between the nozzle and the discharge tank to allow the chemical to circulate. Uehara teaches a discharge tank (20 Fig 1) is disposed adjacent to the storage tank to store the chemical that overflows from the storage tank (col 5, ln 35-50), and a circulation path (21a, 21, 21b Fig 1) is provided between a nozzle (21c Fig 1) and the discharge tank (20 Fig 1) to allow the chemical to circulate (col 5, ln 35-50). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi and Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles as applied to claim 4 to include a circulation path is provided between the nozzle and the discharge tank to allow the chemical to circulate because Uehara teaches this arrangement allows for removal of particles in the processing bath (col 5, ln 35-50). Note that although Uehara teaches the nozzle is below the substrates, Cheney has taught the nozzle of a recirculation line positioned above the substrate as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. The combination of the teachings includes the circulation line flows to the nozzle above the substrates because this was taught by Cheney and the position of the nozzle represents a mere rearrangement of parts of the position of the nozzle to return liquid to the bath.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Cheney, Giles, and Uehara as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Shen (prev. presented US 6,203,659).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Uehara as applied in the combination teaches a filter in the circulation path (21 Fig 1, col 5, ln 35-50) but fails to teach a filtering system (i.e. more than one filter for different particle size filtration) in which recovery target size of sludge contained in the chemical is reduced stepwise. In the same field of endeavor of an immersion processing apparatus (abstract), Shen teaches the recirculation line includes a filtering system in the recirculation line in which recovery target size of sludge contained in the chemical is reduced stepwise (see filter 21 and 20 Fig 3) (col 4, ln 60 to col 5, ln 5, see also claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi and Kobayashi in view of Cheney, Giles, and Uehara to include the stepwise filtering system of Shen because Shen teaches this filtering arrangement allows for filtering of particles to remove them from the bath (col 4, ln 60 to col 5, ln 5).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shen.
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles remains as applied to claim 4 above. Additionally the rejection of claim 5 over Kobayashi in view of Cheney, Giles, and Uehara remains as applied above. This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively to the rejection of claim 5 over Kobayashi in view of Cheney, Giles, and Uehara above. Kobayashi and the combination as applied to claim 4 fails to teach a circulation path is provided between the nozzle (31 of Fig 2 of Cheney) and the discharge tank (21 of Fig 2 of Cheney) to allow the chemical to circulate. Shen teaches a circulation path (re-circulation line 16 to line 18 of Fig 1) provided between a discharge opening (bottom of tank 25) and a nozzle (shown not numbered in Fig 1 as end of line 18). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi and Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles to include the circulation path (re-circulation line) of Shen because Shen teaches this allows for re-circulation (i.e. re-use) of the liquid in the tank (col 1, ln 64 to col 2, ln 15), allows for filtering of the liquid to remove undesired particles (col 1, ln 64 to col 2, ln 15), and allows for concentration monitoring and control (col 1, ln 64 to col 2, ln 15).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 5 above. Shen as applied in the combination teaches the recirculation line includes a filtering system in the recirculation line in which recovery target size of sludge contained in the chemical is reduced stepwise (see filter 21 and 20 Fig 3) (col 4, ln 60 to col 5, ln 5, see also claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi and Kobayashi in view of Cheney, Giles, and Shen to include the stepwise filtering system of Shen because Shen teaches this filtering arrangement allows for filtering of particles to remove them from the bath (col 4, ln 60 to col 5, ln 5).
Claim(s) 7 is/are additionally and/or alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (prev. presented US 5,873,381).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles remains as applied to claim 1 and 7 above. This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively in the event applicant can persuasively argue that Giles does not teach a curved corner or that the curved corner is not at a bottom of the storage tank. Initially it is noted that the curved corner appears to represent a change of shape of the corners of the tank and storage tank to include curved or rounded corners (or edges). It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the corners or edges of the storage tank. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a liquid chemical processing device (abstract, Fig 4-5), Han teaches that changing the shape of right-angled corner portions (such as that disclosed by the storage tank of Cheney as applied in the combination) to be curved prevents the contamination from accumulating in the corner which is what occurs in a right-angled corner portion (col 4, ln 52 to col 5, ln 25). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination to include curved corners to prevent stagnation in the right-angle corners because Han teaches that this decreases contamination generation during the wet treatment of substrates (col 5, ln 5-25). Note that in the modification to include rounded corners, this includes the corner of the storage tank of Cheney opposite to the communication port.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuroda (prev. presented US 2002/0153098).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi and the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Kobayashi teaches the apparatus is configured to perform the resist removal processing individually for each of the substrates [0062], the resist removal processing including: placing one of the substrates on one of the plurality of holders at the non-immersed position (Fig 4 [0074], [0076]); moving one of the plurality of holders holding the one of the substrates downward to the immersed position [0062-0064]; keeping the one of the substrates at the immersed position for a predetermined time[0062-0064]; moving the one of the plurality of holders holding the one of the substrates upward to the non-immersed position [0065]; chucking the one of the substrates at the non-immersed position by the chuck and removing the one of the substrates from the one of the plurality of holders [0076-0082]; and placing another of the substrates different from the one of the substrates on the one of the plurality of holders at the non- immersed position [0076-0082]. Kobayashi fails to teach a controller configured to control the vertical drivers and the chuck to perform the recited operations. Initially it is noted that automating the process by using a controller to control the apparatus is an obvious modification because it reduces the potential for human error and reduces the cost of labor and thus the cost of manufacturing. Further, broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a liquid chemical processing device (abstract, Fig 1,3), Kuroda teaches a controller (63 Fig 5) configured to control vertical drivers (21 Fig 3 [0053],[0055]) and the chuck [0053],[0055] to control the transfer operation of the substrates being immerse in a bath [0053-0055] (Fig 3, 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to include a controller configured to control the vertical drivers and chuck to perform the operations as recited because Kuroda teaches the control program prevents the two moving structures from interfering with each other [0015] (i.e. prevents crashing of the moving structures).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (prev. presented US 6,235,147).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi and the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Kobayashi fails to teach the vertical drivers are provided in a staggered arrangement with respect to the processing tank. Initially it is noted that this appears to represent a rearrangement of parts of the position of the vertical drivers. Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a liquid chemical processing device (abstract, Fig 12,13), Lee teaches that drivers for submerging substrates in a plurality of tanks may be arranged in a staggered arrangement (Fig 12 or 13) which allows for a plurality of transfer robots to move substrates through the same series of tanks without interference (col 8, ln 27-50 and col 9, ln 1-15) at the same time (note this increase throughput). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the vertical drivers of Kobayashi in a staggered arrangement because Lee teaches this is a functional alternative for moving substrates through a series of tanks.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Cheney and Giles as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumpf (prev. presented US 3,193,121).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi and the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Kobayashi fails to teach the processing tank is fan-shaped in plan view and the vertical drivers are provided along an outer arc of the processing tank. Initially it is noted that the inclusion of a fan-shaped tank appears to represent a mere change of shape. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the tank in plan view. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of a liquid chemical processing device (col 1, ln 9-20), Kumpf teaches a fan shaped tank (T3 Fig 4 col 2, ln 44-50) for use in processing with a series of tanks (see tank T1, T2 Fig 2) which is what is taught by Kobayashi (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to include a fan-shaped in plan view tank because Kumpf teaches this allows for the processing track to include a loop to turn the substrate back to a return point while continuing to process (Fig 4 and col 2, ln 26-65). Regarding the vertical driver being positioned on the outer arc, this represents a mere rearrangement of parts and Kobayashi has taught vertical drivers (70 Fig 1) on each side of the tank and therefore will include a vertical driver on the outer arc of the fan-shaped tank when the shape of the tank is modified to be a fan shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 11/11/2025, hereinafter reply, have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p5-7) that the combination in which the wall of Cheney includes a lower port would be inconsistent with the design of Cheney. This is not persuasive because a lower port will not prevent overflow of liquid over the wall when the volume of liquid flowing out of a lower port is less than the volume of liquid flowing into the tank 18. Further, the tanks would not equalize in height as applicant argues because wall 17 is positioned lower than wall 16 of Cheney. Therefore the argument that the inclusion of the port would fundamentally alter the operation and render it inoperative for its intended purpose is not persuasive. Although Cheney teaches laminar flow, the addition of the drain does not prevent laminar flow at the top of the tank and Giles teaches a wall (68 Fig 4) with overflow, further indicating that the inclusion of drain does not prevent overflow. The specific flow depends on the control of the flow of liquid into the tank and the apparatus of the combination is capable of being operated with additional flow rates.
The argument that the port of Giles is for drainage and cannot be used for tank to tank transfer because it is used intermittently (reply p6-7) is not persuasive because the port will allow liquid to flow and thereby allows communication between the two tanks. Further, Giles does not teach only intermittent use and indicates the drain may be used during and after processing (operation) (col 4, ln 47-51).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (reply p7), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The arguments regarding the dependent claims (p7-9) rely on the arguments regarding the amendments to claim 1 which have been addressed above and in the rejection for any amendments. Therefore these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2004/0050405 teaches a plurality of tanks adjacent with a substrate lifter (Fig 9-10). US 6,732,749 demonstrate the combination of a wall with recesses 9 (Fig 3-4b) and drains 8 (Fig 4b).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716